"Proposition
8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and
human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in
its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.'

It may well be that "... children have greater opportunities when they are
raised by a mother and a father". It is not at all obvious to me that gay
marriage will result in more children being raised in same sex households other
than those where one of the partners already has custody of a child.

"... definitional choice by the state's electorate and Legislature
provides our society with the aspirational goal, reinforced by moral teaching,
by social scientists and by family scholars, that children have greater
opportunities when they are raised by a mother and a father." Since
marriages can cross state lines, this needs to be a federal issue. Someone
married in Vermont should also be married when they're here. That right
needs to accrue to everybody; it's not a popularity contest. Of course,
limitations can be applied. The federal state can easily show harm if people are
allowed to marry their cousin or refrigerator or pet. However, being affronted,
or supposed wellbeing of children which are not mandatory in marriage,
don't really measure up as arguments. This is about rights for people;
it's not whether it's good for democracy as much as it's good for
the republic.

The LDS church is pro-family. Much of their doctrine and beliefs revolve around
families, which is great and admirable. But I get the feeling from being around
church members and reading comments from church members that unless you're
LDS then a person or couple doesn't or can't have the same pro-family
beliefs. Not everybody in Utah belongs to the LDS Church, but have wonderful
family values, including same-sex couples. Even Non-LDS heterosexual people are
wondering what the fuss is all about giving these Americans their constitutional
right to marry whoever they want. The LDS Church absolutely runs things in Utah
because of their WEALTH and INFLUENCE, but they don't have the right to
discriminate against people and force their beliefs on people who have chosen
not to be part of their church.

"Under our system of federal constitutional government, the role and duty of
the federal judiciary is to say what the law is, not what it thinks it should
be"

Yes, but that is what Judge Shelby was doing, you just
disagree with him as to what the law is.

"without the benefit of
a trial"

Utah's team pushed for the style of trial they had.

"without direct precedent on the issue."

No
district court ever ruled against interracial marriage bans before the Supreme
Court did?

"that there is no discrimination in a state's
rational decision to favor the benefits of gender complementarity in enacting
marriage laws."

Still have to prove that... in a state that
doesn't limit marriage to other categories based on statistical averages
(and the notion that same-sex couples do worse on average is highly dubious),
and a state that lets single people adopt children.

"children
have greater opportunities when they are raised by a mother and a
father."

What kind of logic says that single gay people can adopt
but a same-sex couple shouldn't which is what this state currently has for
adoption policy?

*'Report
details INEQUITIES for kids of gay parents' - By David Crary - AP -
Published by DSNews - 10/25/11

'Carrigan is among a growing
multitude of American children possibly more than 1.2 million of them being
raised by gay and lesbian parents, often WITHOUT all the LEGAL PROTECTIONS
afforded to mom-and-dad households.'

"A stay does show that SCOTUS justices prefer slower pace on
this issue, it does not, however, indicate how justices would rule on this
issue."

Perhaps your are right. I was surprised by the stay
though. It seems that the supreme court is avoiding the issue. Sooner or later
they will have to decide if a state has the right to make same sex marriages.

@Pagan - The State and many opinion pieces in this paper are only selecting a
small sample of research available to push their agenda. The majority of
research from leading academic research universities has proved that their is no
significant change in outcomes of children who are raised in same sex households
vs heterosexual households. The only thing that truly matters for improvising
outcomes is living in loving and stable households.

"We believe that there are ways to ensure equality under the law for all men
and for all women,..."

Perhaps - if Amendment 3 had not clearly
stated, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as
a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

Amendment 3 clearly prohibits any form of recognition for same-sex
relationships. The only way for same-sex couples in Utah to have any access to
equality is to declare the entirety of Amendment 3 unconstitutional under the
Federal Constitution - and once that is done, same-sex marriage is on the table.
There is no way to now go back and allow civil unions or domestic partnerships.
(Amendment 3 has no severability clause allowing part of it to be
unconstitutional and dropped while keeping the rest intact.)

"[R]efer to core constitutional principles..." such as equality under
the law and due process which requires states to prove that their laws are
narrowly tailored to address a purpose to which the laws are rationally
connected.

What is "gender complementarity" and what social
benefits does it offer? How does it apply to marriage and child rearing? How
does prohibiting same-sex marriage further this goal?

Regardless of how you feel about SSM, this editorial is rhetoric. The
court's action was about giving the issue a hearing. What will you say if
the 10th Circuit upholds the decision? Will it still be a promising sign for
democracy, federalism, families? It's a judicial procedural process,
nothing more.

Also, you say "there are ways to ensure equality
under the law for all men and for all women, even as Utah appropriately insists
that marriage consist of a husband and a wife." So what are those ways?
Instead of vague platitudes intended to placate and mislead, put some specifics
on the table. Otherwise, what you write is emptiness, the equivalent of a sugar
high that is soon gone.

In reading this editorial, one would think that the fate of the world hangs in
the balance on both sides. In truth, the stakes are only high for those gay
people waiting for equality under the law. For those who are not gay and can
marry anyone of the opposite sex without regard for quality, the only thing we
risk is a greater degree of moral outrage.

Your gay married
neighbors aren't going to denigrate your 'traditional' marriage
any more than a mixed-race marriage or the pairing of Josh Hutchinson and
Courtney Stodden. One may look disgustingly in their direction, but they will
neither hurt you, your family, or your faith. There is no need to "hide your
kids" from the nefarious loins of those that are different.

What
this article fails to address is how child-rearing in a gay household measures
up to child-rearing in the household of those that are not married; gay or
otherwise. This is the real comparison. These kids won't be shipped off to
a straight family. No. They will simply continue to live in a limbo of
intolerance and ridicule.

Just think this
way: if SCOTUS decline stay request, then when other judges dealing with this
issue, they probably have little hesitation to rule in gay marriage's
favor. and the whole process may soon move too fast than those justices can
handle.

@Esquire

I have the same question. what are those
ways to ensure equality under the law for all men and for all women? civil union
for gay couples? even we can put "separation is not equal" aside, that
civil union route is already blocked by amendment 3. and DN editorial still hope
appeal court will rule amendment 3 constitutional?

"Protecting families"? How does opposition to gay marriage protect
families? I have yet to hear one sound argument supporting this claim. Outside
of a religous argument there is no facts supporting that a Gay marriage is
detrimental to society. Do opponents not understand how bigoted and prejudical
they appear to the majority of Americans?

The only thing the stay from the Supreme Court shows is that the court wants the
issue fully briefed and argued before it makes any type of decision. Business
as usual for the Supreme Court -- it is an incredibly slow-moving entity.

The Supreme Court spoke and yet there are those who believe that Judge
Shelby's "ruling" is more important than the voice of the entire
Court. Why would they not want the full Court to carefully consider whether the
Federal Government has been delegated authority by the Constitution to issue
marriage licenses? That is a simple question. Surely at least one of the
Justices knows where to find that enumerated duty in the Constitution. Could it
be that those who want Judge Shelby's "ruling" to stand don't
want the entire Court to ask him why he chose a dissenting opinion as the basis
for his "ruling"? If Judge Shelby were ruled to be correct for using
the dissent instead of the majority ruling, what will then happen to Roe v Wade
or ObamaCare?

The Supreme Court did what it had to do to keep society
from completely falling apart. Hopefully judges like Judge Shelby have been put
on notice.

Woa hold on there State of Utah, the ruling is only to allow a stay until the
10th Circuit court hears the appeal. There is no telling if the SCOTUS will
even take that appeal (depending upon what it is). Don't go running
victory laps around the capitol just yet. And Justice Kennedy doesn't seem
to keen on toing the conservative line when it comes to social issues.

Ronnie W.:[Just my prediction, it will be left to the states. A California
marriage will still need to be recognized in Utah but Utah will not be forced to
officiate same sex marriages.]

But this is still inadequate for equal
protection. As mentioned in another Deseret News article, even though gay
marriages from other states are recognized here, divorce proceedings for these
marriages cannot be commenced here. Because of this situation, and more, this
issue cannot be left up to the States for long.